Author
Topic: Men's Trouser Fit Check (Read 28626 times)

With my wife's trouser project on hold, I thought I could ask for some advice about my own.

Several months ago I made several pairs of casual trousers using the "Mansie" draft originally posted on the C & T Forum. The only change I made for my figure was a flat seat adjustment (extending the back fork and reducing the height of the seat seam). No iron work was done since the fabrics used would not normally respond well to it.

The best fitting pair is shown below. Material is a lightweight cotton denim. These have been worn and washed several times at this point.

I'm not ashamed of them for casual wear, but the back could obviously fit better; and I would appreciate any suggestions for improvement.

The pattern is shown below. Sorry no construction lines since it was drafted a few months ago:

Looks to me Jim like you need a tad more width through the fork, at the back. I can see very slight roping at the back running down through the seat which could loosen some tightness over your calfs. Hollow out the seam a little this will also have the effect of straightening the CB slightly, maybe let out the stride out a little; IMHO the seat isn't hollow enough so it is pulling, turn one half around and look at the profile of the basin.

IMHO the seat isn't hollow enough so it is pulling, turn one half around and look at the profile of the basin.

Oops! Forgot to mention I have an inlay included in the CB of the pattern. It's an extra inch from top of seat seam, then parallel to the seam down into the curve. The seat seam is marked by a line of punched holes, which I expected to show up better in the photo. So you are not getting a true picture.

This is the slight mod to the pattern I would suggest, alter the curve in the area where the arrow is pointing, more so for the back panel than the front and it should take out the bagginess at the inside back of the legs. Generally a good pattern and the general fits looks fine, just a few tweaks here and there.

Also found the following discussion of "stride" in this thread on the "Ask Andy Forum". Post #11 by Chris Despos defines it as a diagonal measure from the back fork point up to the junction of the side seams and waistband:

What confuses me is he says a flat seat (like mine) should take a shorter stride, not longer. This doesn't seem consistent with extending the back fork, and reducing the height of CB would not affect "stride" as he defines it. Hmmm...

Of course, at this point I should probably just try Tom's suggestion without getting so wrapped up in theory

Hi Jim, the stride is the back part of the fork which sticks out from the top fork when laid on top of each other. The issue you have is not enough fork space, you can see the seam pulling through the 'crack' creating a roping effect down the inside of the buttocks. It wouldn't lower the CB point but straighten it a bit, no, you're right it wouldn't shorten the stride by lowering. I think because you have a sway back you have to redistribute the cloth to get the in-seam running up the centre of the leg, so shortening the front and lengthening the rear gives the same amount of cloth, just in a different place. I would first let out the inlay on the underside to see what the result is.

Thanks Tom. The only inlay is in the seat seam, not the inseam. The 1/2" seam allowances permit a small amount of adjustment, but if more than about 1/4" is needed I'd have to put a gusset in the inseam.

Rather than tear up a finished pair, I think I will cut another out of some cheap wool I have, with some inlay on the upper inseam. Using wool would allow me to explore the effects of ironwork as well.

I always understood "stride" to mean the measurement from the tip of the back fork to the side seam at the waist.Jim, I would say that your pattern needs to reflect more of a flat seat shape in the transition area from the fork to the cb line. Right now it is too gradual, giving you too much fabric laterally, and too short of a cb line. I would remark the area and baste it, then try it on again. The seam allowance would need to be reduced eventually, but only after the alteration is successful. It may still pull a bit but if you ar emaking a new muslin you can clip or trim to your heart's content.

Rather than tear up a finished pair, I think I will cut another out of some cheap wool I have, with some inlay on the upper inseam. Using wool would allow me to explore the effects of ironwork as well.

Trouser ironwork also works in cottons and linnen. The ironwork makes use more of the bias stretchability of the fabric than the molding ability of the fibres.When doing ironwork before the sewing, the effect can be "locked" in the seams. Doing the ironwork after the sewing only works in woolen fabrics, wich hold the new shape because of their molding ability of the fibre.

Trouser ironwork also works in cottons and linnen. The ironwork makes use more of the bias stretchability of the fabric than the molding ability of the fibres.

I'm sure many cottons and wools will stretch. But doesn't trouser ironwork also involve shrinking?

Another issue is care of the finished garment. Other than the amount "locked in" by seams (which presumably means sewing a stretched section to a shrunken one and vice versa), won't any shape infused by the iron be lost the first time the trousers go in the washing machine? This is not a problem for wools which will be dry-cleaned...